bug-grub
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #28581] Add machine name to generated menuentry names


From: Greg Tarsa
Subject: [bug #28581] Add machine name to generated menuentry names
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:41:09 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20091221 Firefox/3.5.7 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #28581 (project grub):

Thanks, Felix.  I understand that there is some unique information already
present in existing menuentry lines.  My system is an experimental system
where I am booting both 32 and 64-bit versions of Ubuntu 9.10. For now. 
However, I expect to be experimenting with other Linux OSes as well.  Unless
the best practice is to run update-grub always from the same instance of the
OS whenever updates are needed, a user in my position will see different
menuentries float to the top of the menu list depending on which OS instance
is booted when the update-grub command is executed.  In this case, the 64-bit
entries are at the bottom because update-grub was last run on a 32-bit
instance.

It may be that I am not using GRUB2 in the generally accepted way; and, of
course, I can/should keep a list of which OSes are on which drives. But the
heart of this feature request is based on the assertion that adding the
architecture information automatically is trivial and eliminates the need for
the kind of manual bookkeeping that would be needed otherwise.

Making this change to 10_linux would ensure that anytime any instance of a
Linux grub2 OS was updated that its entries would be tagged with machine
architecture information.  Since an update occurs at least once with every
installation, it would follow that all menuentries would be tagged with the
proper architecture.

Heck, I'd like to see the distribution's version number included as well.

Granted, that most installations run a single instance of a single version of
a single architecture. In which case, it doesn't really matter what gets done.
 But when configurations get complicated it would be good for the tools to be
able to automatically make things clearer.

Does this make sense?  I am open to argument if my premise is faulty.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?28581>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]